A plea
- Thread starter GeoffP
- Start date
SAM:
Have you considered that, just maybe, people might get a more civil response if they were civil about voicing their concerns or complaints in the first place? Rather than jumping in with wild accusations that the admin or moderators here maliciously alter posts and polls, or that the appointment process of moderators was somehow dishonest, don't you think there might be a better way to approach the issue?
i.e. me, since I'm the only admin involved here.
I do not believe I have been churlish (def: rude and boorish). I am rightly offended by accusations that I am personally dishonest in my administration of this forum, and entitled to express my outrage at such baseless accusations. I think I have done that in a civilised manner.
You haven't commented on sniffy's accusations. Are they uncalled for, SAM? Or do you also think that the admins and moderators here are dishonest and maliciously edit polls and posts? (Try a straight answer for once, please, although I know this is probably beyond you.)
Unsupported nonsense in the same vein as sniffy's accusation that superstring edited her posts (see my analysis of that above, where I found that in fact superstring only made one edit - to his own post).
sniffy's rant (and yes, it is a rant) was not framed as a query. It was framed as a complaint.
As a matter of fact, just today I have had a few exchanges by PM with a (non-moderator) member who wanted to know about various aspects of moderation here. It was a perfectly civil conversation and I was happy to answer his questions. I even suggested that he should perhaps post his questions publically so that other moderators would also have a chance to give their perspectives.
Bells:
Credit where credit is due, please. As you will see from above, I clearly offered to discuss the matter with sniffy by PM, while leaving her the option of a public discussion. She opted to have this discussion publically. She made the choice.
Have you considered that, just maybe, people might get a more civil response if they were civil about voicing their concerns or complaints in the first place? Rather than jumping in with wild accusations that the admin or moderators here maliciously alter posts and polls, or that the appointment process of moderators was somehow dishonest, don't you think there might be a better way to approach the issue?
i.e. me, since I'm the only admin involved here.
I do not believe I have been churlish (def: rude and boorish). I am rightly offended by accusations that I am personally dishonest in my administration of this forum, and entitled to express my outrage at such baseless accusations. I think I have done that in a civilised manner.
You haven't commented on sniffy's accusations. Are they uncalled for, SAM? Or do you also think that the admins and moderators here are dishonest and maliciously edit polls and posts? (Try a straight answer for once, please, although I know this is probably beyond you.)
Unsupported nonsense in the same vein as sniffy's accusation that superstring edited her posts (see my analysis of that above, where I found that in fact superstring only made one edit - to his own post).
sniffy's rant (and yes, it is a rant) was not framed as a query. It was framed as a complaint.
As a matter of fact, just today I have had a few exchanges by PM with a (non-moderator) member who wanted to know about various aspects of moderation here. It was a perfectly civil conversation and I was happy to answer his questions. I even suggested that he should perhaps post his questions publically so that other moderators would also have a chance to give their perspectives.
Bells:
Credit where credit is due, please. As you will see from above, I clearly offered to discuss the matter with sniffy by PM, while leaving her the option of a public discussion. She opted to have this discussion publically. She made the choice.
If you look back on my "rants" you will find similar complaints in my interactions with some mods where posts were selectively deleted to represent only one point of view. You will also recall that I once asked either you or some other moderator to change back one of my polls which had been altered without my consent. I have often had options added to my polls by mods without my consent. Since I can no longer see the edit logs, I have no way of knowing if sniffys "accusations" were valid. My own experience has not been favourable in that account.
Similarly unjustified, I would guess.
I have clearly explained the circumstances in which (rarely) I edit polls. See above.
Except that I've told you they are not valid.
I'm not sure what would justify selective deletion, but then my opinions are irrelevant in this regard.
Then you can understand why some people may have an issue with having their polls altered without consent.
You say a great many things James, unfortunately, you've lost credibility with me so I am afraid I cannot take your word for it.
SAM:
You misread. I was talking about your complaints being unjustified.
I understand that some people post stupid polls, or biased polls. I've seen plenty of polls that ask a question and provide as options "Yes" and "Yes", and that's it. I've altered a few of these to add a "no" option, or (more often) a "No vote" option. If I recall correctly, some of your polls have been of a similar type.
That lack of respect and trust goes both ways, SAM. What a pity.
You misread. I was talking about your complaints being unjustified.
I understand that some people post stupid polls, or biased polls. I've seen plenty of polls that ask a question and provide as options "Yes" and "Yes", and that's it. I've altered a few of these to add a "no" option, or (more often) a "No vote" option. If I recall correctly, some of your polls have been of a similar type.
That lack of respect and trust goes both ways, SAM. What a pity.
No, I won't. I've decided to adopt the new mantra at sciforums. No need to back up any assertions.
Makes life much easier, eh, when you can simply label people without the need to support it.
This has always been your mantra. So nothing has changed. It's practically your modus operendi.
And this thing about every fucking thread about moderation suddenly becoming about you S.A.M is really old, tired, petty and vindictive. I don't understand why, if you have such a large fucking beef with the administration of this site, you don't find somewhere else to peddle your bullshit and neurosis. You can take your yapping pomeranian Gustav with you.
I'm not sure what your purpose is in yapping at my heels in these threads, but its excruciatingly tedious. Fuck off.
No, I am really tired of you coming into every complaint thread and making it about you. You are smart, but have the social IQ of a inchworm. This time, instead of a moderator calling you out on your bullshit, I'm going to. And I give a flying fuck about what you do, or what you think anymore because it's so mired in your neurosis, it's not readable anymore. I could also care fuck all about your opinion on me and my life, or what I do.
Obsessive idiots with no life like you, and the social twitter/facebook fuckwits here, that are only here because the text box on their social sites isn't fucking big enough for their babbling bullshit, have single handedly fucked these forums. I'm sad that we can't have any good conversations anymore because of it.
Obsessive idiots with no life like you, and the social twitter/facebook fuckwits here, that are only here because the text box on their social sites isn't fucking big enough for their babbling bullshit, have single handedly fucked these forums. I'm sad that we can't have any good conversations anymore because of it.
Last edited:
Oh, how the high and mighty have fallen. I'm guessing you won't be dredging up anyones old posts anymore, eh Sam? :bravo: